Manuel, now 70, had previously stated desires to manage once more and speculation ran rampant that he would pursue the Nationals and/or Tigers opening. Manuel, of course, won five straight NL East titles with the Phillies from 2007 through 2011, back-to-back pennants in 2008 and 2009, the World Series in 2008, and is the Phillies all-time winningest manager.

Too bad Charlie didn’t become the Nationals manager. I think he would have had an excellent chance of winning another World Championship. The Cards and a healthy Dodgers may still be better clubs but I think the Nats have already made enough good moves to seriously challenge the Braves for the division title or at least go deep in the playoffs. Arguably, the only team to have a better off-season so far are the Rockies. and with a little luck, I could see the Rockies going from the basement to a wild card next season.

Anyway, if this is what Charlie wanted as a viable option to managing somewhere again, then I’m happy for him.

Public relations??? YES. That’s JUST what the Phillies need right now…. better public relations after all of the at least *perceived* idiocy that Ruben Amaro has demonstrated recently. Charlie is the man to help with that! Good move.

I only hope that the “Phillies” listen to the people. It is quite obvious that the majority want rubin out. he is arrogant and has not relate to the team whatsoever. they had a team and a good one. now is a bunch of guys that probably are good; but not as a team – OUT FOR R – put Charlie in his place

Charlie was pretty successful during his brief stint as the Indians hitting coach. I think he could be a valuable extra set of eyes in their system. As for FO duties I’d have to agree with you, Lefty

I’m reminded again of the great Casey Stengel line when he turned 70 (like Charlie’s about to do) and was summarily fired by the Yankees based on his age. His response to reporters was “I’ll never do that again.”

That’s a great Stengel quip. Maybe you are right, maybe Charlie can help some. I just worry that he sees all the tattoo’s and piercings- and just has difficulty relating to the younger ones. I’m also concerned that he doesn’t preach patience – “walks ain’t hittin” -that’s an actual Uncle Cholly quote.

I’ll always admire and be thankful for Charlie. I’ve said this before- I truly hope the next plaque that goes up in CBP is for him, he deserves it.

Lastly, there is no way I can expose this recent personal experience on a public board, but suffice to say, that I understand how old Casey felt. And I promise never to turn 57 again either.

From personal experience, you’ll feel better about your age when you turn 65, Lefty. Not only does Medicare kick in but senility as well – and the latter tends to take the edge off of things.

Charlie’s “walks ain’t hittin'” comment was obviously a myopic view of the skill for all the obvious reasons. A related silly comment belonged to Ryan Howard when he claimed a strike out is no worse than putting a ball in play for an out.

I’m reminded of the great Mark Twain quote on politicians when he declared, “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”

I’d like to believe Charlie and Ryan both know better and are just prone to those same sweeping generalizations famous among politicians when trying to fortify their points.

I don’t see those two comments as equivalent. Manuel’s comment is almost always wrong, since a walk almost always increases a team’s chance of scoring runs.

Howard’s comment is only wrong about 2% of the time, i.e. those times that a ball in play results in an error. There are also the relatively few times that a ball in play advances a runner, but those need to be offset by double plays grounded into.

Re: the Ryan Howard comment, as I recall, he wasn’t just referencing easy ground outs .A fly ball to the outfield also scores a runner from 3rd. I’d guess that happens successfully enough times to make it quite a bit more valuable than a strike out. Same for a well-placed infield grounder.

Re: Charlie’s comment – obviously working a pitcher into deep counts raises the opportunity for a walk while also wearing down the pitcher. Conversely, if a batter expects to see nothing but strikes from some pitchers (like Cliff), he better not keep the bat on his shoulders expecting a free pass – or a very exhausted pitcher. I suspect part of Charlie’s idea of what hittin’ is all about includes knowing when not to swing.

Actually, in a literal sense, a walk “AIN’T hitting.” The batter doesn’t actually hit anything, he merely listens to the ball whizzing by, then sashays down to first base. With a man standing on third, a walk only helps if there aren’t two outs with the pitcher coming up next, and sometimes it doesn’t help much in other situations, either. If managers thought a walk was actual hitting, there wouldn’t be intentional walks for avoiding those potential hits.

Manuel’s comment I think needs some interpretation. I think most managers prefer the actual base hit, because sometimes the batter gets as many as four bases when he actually makes contact. But I also don’t think most managers, even Charlie, would berate a player for drawing said walk.

I am glad that Charlie will be with the organization. He is a great guy to have around. I didn’t always agree with his moves on the field but he is associated directly with the greatest era of Phillies baseball ever.

I doubt he would make a good GM. It is time to begin to consider alternatives to Amaro. This off-season, like the last one has been a complete disaster.